Town Square

Debate 3: Horses and Tumult and Barnum – Oh My!

Original post made
by Tom Cushing, Danville,
on Oct 24, 2012

The "miscellaneous impressions" format worked so well last week in promoting a searching policy conversation -- let's try it again.

1 -- The overriding theme of this debate was agreement, as Mr. Romney repeatedly stated that he believes Mr. Obama's approaches were correct, only he'd had done more of it, sooner. The strategy behind this Me, Too approach is pretty clear  to mollify those who have been afraid that he's a reckless amateur, and to defuse the international realm as a source of distinction between the candidates  thus refocusing attention on the domestic issues that better suit him. It's a risky proposition, as it relies on voters' continuing tolerance of his Say Anything candidacy, and it is so soon after his contradictory, bellicose pronouncements on Iran, and his tactless summer vacation tour. Was PT Barnum right? We'll see next month.

2 -- Mr. Obama clearly 'won' this debate: on his record, on his experience and on the popular zinger count. His contrast of his first visit to Israel with Mr. Romney's was inspired, and meaningful. But he spent way too much time parrying Romney's 'whoppers,' and not enough time articulating his evident foreign policy vision. He has built and required international consensus and responsibility in actions against wrong-doers, and walked the American talk: reflecting our bedrock political values in his actions -- and he should have said so.

Too often in the past, I believe, the US has allowed immediate, economic expedients to dictate policy at the expense of democracy; in this hemisphere and Iran, for example, we've propped-up dictators and undermined the democratic process when the results did not please us. The US has also too-often acted unilaterally, as in Iraq (a coalition?? Please don't bother). That's both arrogant and expensive, in budgetary and human terms. The Obama Doctrine is sound and nuanced  indeed, it is precisely the kind of consistent, future-directed strategy Mr. Romney called for at the start of the session. The Prez missed an opportunity to make that knockout argument in crystal clear terms.

3 -- The "1916 Navy" claim, which got the derisive, if somewhat overplayed smackdown it deserved, is disturbing on a deeper level. It was yet another cynical, fear-mongering gambit from the guys who claim they are running against fear-mongering. It is fear-mongering, since it wrongly suggests weakness, and cynical, because size is meaningless when applied to ship count  and they must have known it. It's a claim about nothing. Calling Mr. Barnum, again.

4 -- The media response has again been tepid and superficial. There were strenuous attempts to say something nice about both Participants, without any policy weighting about what's actually important. And the fact checkers concerned themselves with whether Marines are issued bayonets. Sure  and they get swords, too  great for recruiting commercials, and utterly trivial in terms of national security.

5 -- One other danger in Mr. Romney's rope-a-dope approach to this debate  how can it be that he repeatedly agreed with Mr. Obama's actions and plans  and yet claimed that they reflect 'weakness,' 'unraveling' and 'tumult?' It's not only inaccurate  it's internally inconsistent. Will the disconnected Undecideds who may decide this election let him get away with that, too, PT?

6 -- The focus on terror left other, hugely important issues out in the cold: the European debt crisis and global warming being two examples. I understand that the latter is still a hot stove  untouchable, although bound to fry us all in due course. But the EU is far from out-of-the-woods on its finances, and all it got was yet another absurd-on-the-facts reference to Greece. The policy approaches taken by Europe are controversial and fundamentally affect the US economy. Folks, if the EU economy were to tank, so would ours  no amount of confidence-fairy dust would help. If the candidates are serious about their "strength at-home" point, they have to be thinking about how the US can help forestall that calamity. Inquiring minds want to know what they're responses will be  managed bankruptcy? Some manner of Keynesian stimulus?

7 -- Finally, neither China nor Africa got sufficient time  that's important, and inter-connected. There's an excellent book I want to get-to after the election called "Winner Take All," that describes China's effective, long term resource acquisition strategy, especially in commodity-rich, developing Africa. It contrasts the West's "aid" approach with China's better-received "partnership" approach, from the perspective of an African-born economist. It's an important phenomenon, not yet much on our radar.

Again, it's your turn...

Comments

Like this comment

Posted by Sam
a resident of Danville
on Oct 24, 2012 at 11:12 am

Tom, that is a worthy point to raise about China's approach to natural resources and national security. Does it make you wonder if part of our impetus for intervening in Iraq (oil) and Afghanistan (minerals) over the past decade was to try to pre-empt China from developing strategic alliances for natural resources in that region? After all, those nations lie only a little southwest from China's southwestern border. If so, we have not been entirely successful, as one of China's state-owned copper companies has a huge development deal in Afghanistan. It is also not clear which foreign companies have received oil contracts in Iraq. But, given America's economic reliance on strategic resources, we should be concerned about China's partnering moves in Africa and elsewhere and think about whether we are pursuing the best strategy.

Is there anything Obama could do that would make you not vote for him?

For example, if Obama said he believes in slavery, would you still vote for him?

Obama soothes with rhetoric and kills people in secret. How many innocent people will Obama kill before you protest?

As you know, Obama terrorizes innocent Pakistanis on an almost daily basis. His drone war isn't "precise" or "surgical" as he would have Americans believe. He's killed hundreds of children and thousands of innocent civilians.

Obama, secretly orders and oversees the extrajudicial killing of American citizens, including a 16 year old kid, as described last July in Esquire magazine. Web Link Obama's kill list transgresses against the Constitution as egregiously as anything George W. Bush ever did.

Contrary to Obama's own previously stated understanding of what the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution demand, President Obama committed U.S. forces to war in Libya without Congressional approval, despite the lack of anything like an imminent threat to national security.

Last week, The Atlantic carried a very persuasive article written by a former Obama supporter, urging people in non-battle ground states, like California, to vote for a third party candidate, like Gary Johnson. Web Link#

SP: let me answer your first Q with all the sober reflection it deserves: before I would decide whether to vote for Mr. Obama if he backed slavery, I would want to know Mr. Romney's position on the subject, how long he'd held it and how many other positions he'd advocated since he entered public life.

As to my review of his Presidency, I'm in the disappointed liberal camp  he has governed more as a centrist than I'd like. I think he should have led on same sex marriage, instead of treating it as a political expedient. I also think he should have ridden herd on his own Party Faithful about Health Care, and then 'splained it to the American people much better than he has. I think he has given away too much in his tax negotiations with Congress. And I've written here in the RC about the disquiet I feel over the drones issue. The only way I can live with the current system is that I trust this Prez to understand the constitutional gravity of his actions  in great contrast to the "dam' piece of paper" approach of his predecessor. I don't like "inevitable collateral damage"  it's a palliative I wouldn't take, and I do not think he takes much comfort in it, either.

All that said, I believe your numbers are greatly exaggerated for effect, and ultimately unknowable in any event. How you could equate even those numbers with the actions of Mr. Bush in fomenting a fraudulent war for ulterior motives, and the hundreds of thousands of casualties that flowed from that policy is truly beyond my comprehension. You might try calculating how many lives have Not been sacrificed on all sides because of the American withdrawal from that conflict, and the coming wind-down in Afghastlystan.

Overall, I'm reasonably satisfied with Mr. Obama's approach to governing at-home, and especially abroad. I do not blame him for the economy  we should have done More, not less, but the Congress indefensibly would not relent, precisely so they could try to pin it on him in this campaign. I trust him, and I look forward to the continuation of his Administration, 'til it's Hillary's turn. And you know how I feel about the alternative.

As to a protest vote  and not having yet read the article, the only reason I can see to do that is that if Romney wins the popular vote, but loses the Electoral College, we can finally get bi-partisan support to get rid of that anachronism. I am tired of California's being taken for granted by both sides, except when we're being shaken-down, and I don't want to have to travel to Nevada to poll-watch, lest there be any fraudulent anti-fraudulent-vote chicanery afoot thereabouts.

I'm not equating Obama's drone strikes with Bush's wars. I voted John Kerry. Bush was WAY WORSE than Obama. I would vote for Obama over Bush any day! I think Bush belongs in jail. Back in 2003, my family and I walked arm and arm with all those freaks in San Francisco. It was exhilarating. I disagreed with them about almost everything. And they needed to shower and get haircuts. But for that brief moment we shared a common cause against the war and against Bush.

There are people who currently work for the CIA who engaged in actual torture under Bush. I wish Obama would follow the law and prosecute them.

I'm shocked that so many Americans like you look the other way because their guy is in power. That goes for both Republicans and Democrats.

Obama's lead in California is 12 points. We can cast protest votes against Romney and Obama without any fear that it will impact the current race.

Why don't you join Camille Paglia, Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic and many prominent Democrats and Republicans who are not voting for either Romney or Obama? Let our voices be heard!

I'll make you a deal. I'll do it if you do it. I'll even vote Green Party (gasp) if you want. Now those Green guys are freaking nut jobs. But I'd rather vote Green than have a war criminal (Obama) in the White House or a guy who says he wants to be a war criminal (Romney).

MY party? I think I'm registered as an Independent, and we don't have parties. I happen to like Obama, and Hillary -- I just wish Barack was more of a leader and less of a politician, and paradoxically, I wish he was better at the rough-and-tumble of politics. He'll probably make a better Supreme, like Taft.

Wow Tom, your response to SPCWT was remarkable - on so many levels. Is Obama truly a man you trust, as you stated, '...I trust this Prez, to understand the constitutional gravity of his actions..." How low are your standards when it comes to expectations of politicians?

Obama understands his absolute selfish needs and agenda- that is all he understands. He can't comprehend the gravity of the meaning of the words in the constitution because he only sees himself and his agenda. THAT is all he ever sees. He does not respect the constitution or this country. He has contempt for the USA. He is a secularist/socialist and this is what he is striving towards with he policies in our country

The most recent example of this "man/juvenile" Obama, who can't be trusted or even depended as our Commander in Chief: The dishonest, disgusting, disgraceful way he handled our American Ambassador's murder along with three other Americans. The President and his Vice President knew at 6:00 pm the day of this killing in Benghazi, Libya the violence was occurring at the embassy. Obama, Clinton, and his staff let those men suffer and DIE, trying to defend themselves against a terrorist group - over at least a nine hour period. We had drones flying overhead and Obama did NOTHING to help these American Men. No one can dispute this now; they can only ignore these facts - particularly the national press. Obama flew to Las Vegas the very next day, knowing the truth of this tragedy. Any leader of the US with any respect for our country and his staff, would have stayed and handled and managed this murder while they were occurring.

-What the heck does that say to you? When he and his administration KNEW these facts at the time and blamed a frickin video? This President of ours, went in front of the United Nations and claimed the murders and attacks were due to a home made video when he KNEW that was a lie. What does that say about trust? How do you trust a slick guy like Obama, who is a chronic and unrepentant liar?

Sadly Obama understands the Constitution - he doesn't CARE about gravity or respect towards the Constitution because he has only disdain for this Constitution. Drunk with power, he leads his liberal administration machine and rolls over this Constitution and rules of any kind; taking action regardless if it's legal or not - all from his disdain for our constitution. Ethics? Rules? They don't apply to him or his dishonest administration and the "talking heads" supporting him in the press. Obama needs all the help he can get in this campaign and the press and journalists in the papers and television stations know what an amateur and rookie the guy from ACORN truly is - this is why they work so hard to support Obama.

Our president has no respect - zero, for playing by rules or leading transparently. He is a man/boy. A juvenile who came from a background that he still won't share. How did this young boy learn how to communicate so dishonestly? Where did he learn this skill? At all the elite private high schools and the three private colleges he attended? Who paid? How did he manage to pay off scholarships or loans? Why hasn't he ever, ever had a paying job in the private sector?! Even in college when he was driving his crummy little car. Wonder how he could afford a car? Working...hmmm...Maybe beneath him? Laziness?

Who knows... but I'd prefer to have a man or woman in the White House who has honor for our military - not confusion. Respect for everyone in our country - even newborns or unborn children. As a senator he voted THREE TIMES to legalize late term abortions. Even France doesn't legalize this barbaric treatment of human beings. Killing unborn babies at eight and nine months...What kind of human being votes for this? Tom, would you??

He makes his decisions behind closed doors, on his terms. He will take all credit for anything viewed as a success (Osama Bin laden) but will blame, and blame, and blame others when things are viewed negatively. He turns his back on family and friends (Reverend Wright etc.) at the drop of a hat. Are these characteristics anyone wants to see in a grown adult man? Let alone a leader of the United States? The "main man" who's supposed to have our backs?

This lazy leader handles himself deplorably - how can you believe this guy when he's such a fake? He wasn't taught how to respect people. This man is a Chicago elitist thug and when he got into office he had no international or business experience what so ever - none. Purely academic. He was was living in the comfortable cocoon of academia and community organizing. Speaking for a living. Brilliant! This is the only area this president is brilliant; according to reports on his college grades and his autobiography, he wasn't a good student. Mediocre grades.

The worst example of Obama's lack of character or integrity was making Hilary Clinton take the fall for his failures in responding to our diplomats in Libya calling for more protection for their safety. Although I disagree with Mrs. Clinton's political views, I respect her for having the courage to take responsibility for Libya, unlike Obama who has never taken responsibility for any of his mistakes. He apparently learned this from his wonderful father who abandoned his mother and had almost no contact with young Barack, but went on to inpregnant many other young ladies, never being a father to any of the children. I guess this is where his dream of wealth redistribution comes from.

Obama has been in over his head since 2008. He lacks experience. He is a narcissist. He is a race monger. He will be defeated..too bad Tom and Chris Matthews will have to find a different way for that thrill up their legs.

I have a feeling that, in Ann's house, Faux News is never turned off. Or perhaps she is locked in a "mind-meld" with that radio nut-job, Mark Levin.

Anyway, Ann is fond (no, obsessed) with saying that PRESIDENT Obama doesn't respect the Constitution. But, she leaves out ANY examples of what she means by that. Got any?

She also claims that President Obama has never held a job in the private sector. Last time I checked, the University of Chicago, where President Obama was a law professor, is a private university.

Ann also says that when President Obama "got into office" he had no international experience. Not sure which office she is referring to. When he was elected president, he had spent four years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- surely pretty good international experience, and certainly more than President Reagan had when he was elected president.

Ranting and raving sure can be a lot of fun for you, right, Ann? But, it would be a lot more interesting for the rest of us if you included facts once in a while -- real facts.

Ann, Am and Trina: obviously I'm on very different distribution lists from the ones you favor, as I find the scattershot invective hurled Mr. Obama's way extreme, factually absurd, and frankly offensive in several instances. I'll take those charges to indicate two things: that election day must not be far-off, and that I'm pretty sure I know what scary costumes you'll be wearing for Halloween.

And Trina, as to "the thrill up my legs?" While I appreciate your concern (I think), and ol' Chris is on his own, I can happily report that my legs are well taken care-of -- regardless of the impending electoral outcome. Thrilled, even.

There's certainly no accounting for some political views. But, reading the (still after 4 years) extreme reactions to our president, and the nature and tone of the language used, I can't help but think that the origin of these feelings (whether directly from the hearts of the posters on this forum, or indirectly from the media sources they listen to) is the deeply prejudiced view that a black man -- any black man -- can never deserve to be president of this great nation.

Sad, but true.

One of the things that leads me to this conclusion is that the right-leaning posters on this forum harp on President Obama's significant educational and professional accomplishments, and try to disparage them -- attempting to show that they are somehow illegitimate or not what they seem.

Yet, they had no trouble embracing the rather shabby qualifications of President George W. Bush (well-known to be a white man), despite his lackluster college grades, his long-term alcoholism, his garbled syntax, and his dismal track record in business, running several companies into the ground.

Dave: As usual, you liberals have play race card when you have nothing to defend valid criticism. By the way, Condy Rice, an African American female, would make a better President than either Obama or Romney. That kinda negates your race card hysterics.

Dave is so clever. He calls "Fox News" "Faux News." You might have thought he just made a typo, but notice how many times he makes the SAME typo. Practically every post he ever makes. Is it just a coincidence? Not likely.

If you do a little investigative research and look up the word faux, you'll discover that it's actually a French word that means "false." Can you believe that!!!?

Dave: Your attacks on Romney must because of his religion is a Mormon, and you simply must not want a Mormon in the Whitehouse. What else could it be? How does that religion card make you feel? Thought so. Stick to factual analysis and stop with the lame race card.

Dave - Believe it or not, I had some hope for our country when Obama was elected. It was exciting to have crossed that barrier; having a black man elected as president. I truly felt hopeful.

On the other hand, after four years of lying, dividing men from women, Hispanics, union and non-union members, Black Americans from White Americans, class and racial warfare encouraged and supported by Obama, I can't imagine a worse example of an adult leader in our White House!!! His lack of class and gratitude has been shocking, but this is what you get from a guy who was raised without a father. Sorry, but he missed some lessons he can't learn on his own as a narcissist.

The United States deserves much, much better. We deserve an adult leader - man or woman who is capable of negotiating and implementing policies that help the US citizens - not hurt the US citizens. I want to know I can depend on the president to "have our backs" as Mitt Romney believes and said in the last debate.

I'm tired of watching this juvenile in the White House. It has been the most embarrassing four years. This man/child trying to shove his ideals down our throats without legitimate discussion within the Senate and Congress. Seventy percent of Americans were against government health care and yet he made sure it passed - regardless of whether any of the politicians (including (Speaker of the House Nancy Peloisi) had read the over 1,000 pages of health care rules under Obama Care. Which they hadn't!!!!!!!

This president chose to IGNORE the cries for help from his own Ambassador of Libya, a citizen of the United States - prior to being SLAUGHTERED by terrorists in Benghazi. Instead of managing the tragedy or sending help or staying at the White House to take care of business and try to save lives - he flew to Las Vegas to campaign - and to spew his lies for what he's going to do for all of us individually, in this country if he wins the election.

After 17 vacations, the golfing, sleeping in each day at the House, everyone else doing his work while he sits back and talks and talks and talks: I would love to see someone working as hard as Mitt Romney does......for us. Not for himself as Obama does.

How dare you Dave, accuse anyone on this site of being racist because we don't like the policies or the lack of character in this president that we've had to stomach for the last four years.

You sound a bit bitter. Those darn chips on the shoulders. Maybe it's time to see a chiropractor?

I'm with Donna Brazile on this one -- as she has said, it's impossible to have a discussion about race at this time in America. It's just not useful. I think she meant (my words now) that it's because making the charge provokes the other side to go into High Dudgeon, how-dare-you mode -- happens every time. Too easy.

I don't think there's much doubt that it's at-play, and that the GOP has played dirty pool with it by designing so-called "dog whistles" for race into their commercials (e.g., the bogus "welfare" ads), but that's politics. I wouldn't be surprised if there are whispers of "cult" coming from the Dems, although I haven't heard them.

I also wrote earlier in the RC (that's a clever abbrev for Raucous Caucus, with no apologies to S-P, the stealth commenter) about a "Bradley Effect" of from two-to-five points that has been estimated by one clever researcher -- I suspect that's about right. But that's not the "race" we're dealing with here -- this race card resides in the profoundly disrespectful language and outrageous charges leveled against this Prez -- with impunity, mostly without support, as if they are self-evident.

When I teach Employment Law, I talk about how I believe the CR Act of 1964 was been a force for Acceptance of difference in the American culture (cognitive dissonance, and all that). The Head of the department, a black woman in her 60s, disagrees and believes it has, at best, driven it underground. There's not an Angry Black Woman bone in her body -- and I think she may be right.

Tom: Did racism play a role in your parties vicious attacks on Republican Herman Cain? Be honest. You see racism only when it helps your argument or political views, right? By the way, how come the California Bar website does not list you as ever being a licensed attorney in California? Have you ever taken the California bar exam? Was racism the reason you failed? Sad that students are getting lectures on employment law from someone who is not even a licensed attorney in California.

Dave - Geez Louise, I gotta tell you, I did not use any words in my comments with anything racial in mind. That kind of makes me sick to my stomach that you've decided to go that direction. It truly disgusts me to think this is the only direction you can take this conversation. We have all been affected by bias at one time or another - possibly many times in our lives and it's horrible.

Why is it OK for the left to use any type of words they choose to express themselves, in their writings or conversations but unacceptable and even called out (dishonestly) when the reverse is true?

For the record, I didn't embrace George Bush's qualifications. Is he on the ballot again this November? Here's a question for you?... Who is Obama going to blame for the last four catastrophic years if he is re-elected?

Am: it's a matter of public record that I am a member of the CA Bar, number 175975 (and IL and TX before that). I am actually pretty proud of the fact that I passed CA in 1995, having had to take the full exam, in my 40s, because I had not practiced for eight years prior when I was running businesses for the DuPont Company and Conoco Inc. I was 18 years out of law school at the time.

I am on Inactive status, meaning only that I do not currently practice for a living. I can change back to Active any time by paying a full year's dues. You could look it up: Web Link . And before you step in it again, please know that I was awarded Adjunct of the Year at GGU in 2007 -- there are about 500 adjuncts at the U., at any given time.

Now, you tell me, counselor, why was it that you thought all of this is relevant to the third debate?

Tom: You are not allowed to practice law in California, so when you posted in this thread about you teaching employment law in California, you opened the door to your lack of license to practice law in California. Don't infer to people you are allowed to practice law in California, when you are not legally allowed to do so. You are either licensed to practice law, or are not licensed to practice law, and Tom you are not allowed to practice. By the way, your inability to practice law has nothing to do with racism either.

American: are you daft? Drunk? I am Fully Licensed to practice law in California! I Chose Inactive status within the profession because I have also Chosen to recruit as a way to make a living, and it's $300/year cheaper on the dues front. You should be applauding my fiscal responsibility, in not paying more than I have-to to retain my credentials! If I Choose tomorrow to return to law practice, I can be in court on Monday afternoon. Did you even look at the helpful weblink I provided that explains all that?

If anyone has opened a door, sir, you have -- to the opportunity to apologize for your now twice-repeated blunder. I doubt you will Choose to walk through it.

In other news, Romney campaign surrogate John Sununu stated for the record that he believes Gen. Powell's endorsement of The President is because they are both black. Mr. Romney has so far not repudiated the statement, but then, neither has he dissociated himself from IN Senator candidate Mourdock's claim that his god intends for some rape victims to become pregnant.

And here's a perspective on the Powell endorsement from a Republican who's pretty unhappy with his Party: Web Link It bears on the discussion, above, at least the part that doesn't try to impugn my professional credentials.

BTW, American, you are invited to sit-in on my class, if you like -- and then decide first-hand whether I'm any good at it. You can even participate -- but there, you'll need actual evidence to back up your claims.

Tom: You brag about being an "adjunct" professor teaching employment law as part of your lecture to us Danville Express readers, suggesting that makes you an "Expert" on the debate issue in this thread? Then you freak out when I look up licensed attorneys currently allowed to practice in California and your name does not show up. Than you accuse me of being drunk and being off topic, when it was you who brought up being attorney teaching law? And you still never answered my question on topic if democrats vicious attacks on republican Herman Cain had anything to do with racism?
FYI, best professors I had in college and grad school didn't pretend to have all the answers on everything, were open minded, not defensive, and good listeners to opinions of others, so no, I see no reason to listen to a lecture from you. F. Y. I. If you ever decide to try to become authorized to practice law , better make sure you have all your MCLE units, and try to attend classes dealing with the art of listening.

You know, my Mama taught me, long before law school, that the first step in climbing out of a hole is to stop digging. I'm not responsible for your lousy internet search skills  the record is there, and I even pointed you to it. I have my "long form" CA law license in the bookcase  shall I take a photo and post it for you? Hell, I'll even show you my college transcripts for $5 million, Mr. Trump. Your 'gotcha' moment has gone south on you; stop digging (I've given-up on apology).

Herman Cain was never a serious candidate; that he once led the GOP poll is a testament to the shallow pool of alternatives. I'm pretty sure Mr. Obama would've relished the opportunity to run against him, since he had demonstrated remarkable ignorance all by himself, and he had paved his own way out of the campaign by his previous extra-curricular sexual behavior, and then lying about it. I'm not sure what vicious attacks you are referring-to, but most of the mud being slung around that time was intramural. Why would the Dems bother -- when their opponents were doing all the work for them?

Persecute? Nah, I just said that it rendered him unelectable, and it did. As to Mr. Clinton (Bill, not George), I think I noted in an earlier blog my astonishment that he remains a popular figure -- but he does.